Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by samthedigital

  1. I don't because it isn't always possible or efficient to do that. In reality we don't choose between scenarios. We don't rank characters based on how much worse it would be if they existed and other units didn't. Besides, the fact that a unit is using resources to complete a chapter is a side effect of actually using the unit. Here's an example where your hypothetical situation doesn't work. Suppose we compare Marcus to a hypothetical Marcus that joins in chapter 26 with the experience he would have had if we used him a decent amount. Real Marcus is better than hypothetical Marcus because it's far more efficient to have him around early than to have that character later on. We don't consider the resources that real Marcus uses because he has to use them to make the early game as quick as it is. It doesn't matter that he's promoted; pretend that he isn't if you like, or perhaps consider an unpromoted unit that isn't quite as good that is still necessary for efficient play.
  2. Assuming that this hypothetical unit reaches the same level of combat at the same time while not being a detriment to the team then yes, they would be better. As I said earlier training units does not absolve them of their weaknesses. Amelia spends most of the time either not existing or being the worst character in the game, and a tier list would reflect that. Amelia's also kind of special because she's so bad that she needs to set the rest of the team back in order to train her, and we would use opportunity cost to determine if it's worth the time it takes to make her a positive contribution to the team. I said this earlier "A unit should be trained to the extent that it's possible to train them assuming the rest of the team is well constructed and designed to beat chapters quickly.", and it applies here. Potential is the wrong word here; it depends on when they reach their potential. I covered that more in the Amelia example, so I won't go into any more detail here. Anyway, Isadora would be considered the worst Paladin (every other unit that can become a Paladin is probably better than her by the time they join or close to it, or they have a lot more early game utility), but that doesn't make her the worst unit. She's the worst Paladin, but she's better than the best Warrior, Swordmaster, or Sniper for example.
  3. If you want to take opportunity cost into account then you run into exactly the issue I outlined. I can say that Lyn isn't worth training because the resources could be better used elsewhere. In Jill's case it's the fact that it's just not worth spending the time it takes to get her, but in Lyn's case it's experience and the deployment slots over the course of several chapters. They are two different resources, but functionally the result is the same. Isadora is mounted and she has access to the weapon triangle. Training units does not absolve them of their inherent weaknesses, so Isadora's position would likely not change much. We can't always compare characters from one playthrough anyway, and we don't compare units from a single hypothetical playthrough. If we wanted to compare Kent to Sain for example we would compare a Kent that was promoted in LHM to a Sain that was promoted in LHM.
  4. Hard is not the correct term here. We should value resources and time, but difficulty doesn't matter. It's a small point, but it's important because difficulty is subjective, and it could be difficult to train a character that is both fast and efficient to use. I can't really think of any good examples at the moment, but it is possible. I'm going to assume that both experience and deployment are free resources because otherwise we run into the best play issue. If we rank characters based on how much they can do while playing efficiently then babying is not an issue. A unit should be trained to the extent that it's possible to train them assuming the rest of the team is well constructed and designed to beat chapters quickly. I don't think that opportunity cost should be factored in. Otherwise we run into that same problem I mentioned earlier. I'll use FE9 Jill in normal mode as an example to illustrate the point; I wish I had an example that didn't involve recruitment cost, but I'm tired and can't think of anything better at the moment. Suppose we compare the Jill we recruited and used to the fullest to the Jill we never even recruited. The Jill we never recruited is better because it saves time over recruiting and using her. If we only factor in opportunity cost to a certain degree we have to arbitrarily decide where we want to draw the line, and it gets complicated really quickly too. I want to mention stat boosters just for the sake of completion here. I don't think that using a bunch of stat boosters on a character breaks tiering either. Let's suppose I wanted to give Lyn a bunch of stat boosting items. She does get a lot more durable, but it doesn't change her situation much otherwise. She still doesn't have 1-2 range or a mount, so her ability to do anything meaningful in a map is still limited.
  5. I'm guessing he thinks that it's actually worth using Eliwood for an entire playthrough even if he's wrong. We'd need clarification from him to be sure, but I wouldn't say "so for the most part it's just a waste of exp to train Lyn" if I wanted to actually compare her to Eliwood.
  6. Eliwood is slightly more useful than Lyn in the second context because he has some early game contributions. I don't disagree with your sentiment though; I would also rather use the first criteria to compare characters, but I don't think that Altha is comparing characters that way.
  7. No, it absolutely does change things. I provided an instance where we don't compare Lyn to other characters based on using her.
  8. I'm assuming that he's trying to compare Lyn to Eliwood in a theoretically 'optimal' playthrough, and we can absolutely judge characters based on that.
  9. Reporting your post usually helps. That's what I have done when I double post anyway =P. You want to be careful about saying this sort of thing. It's not worth putting resources into either of the two long term unless Eliwood gets blessed, so if we go by that logic then the better character is determined by what they contribute early on. Eliwood exists in the first 5 chapters of HHM, so by that logic he's still better, but he also doesn't get deployed after that unless he gets blessed enough to the point that it's worth using him. The Lyn vs. Eliwood discussion isn't really doing much to show that there are characters that are much worse than Eliwood that are ignored though. Lyn is often overrated and not really ignored (or at least she was historically, and I would argue that it has more to do with the fact that people like Lyn than how she performs as a character). That being said Eliwood isn't actually good, so there aren't many lords that are much worse than him to begin with. He might get a mount in chapter 26, but getting one doesn't automatically make him good.
  10. You didn't point out anything that helped. Mounted units perform better in every single situation you mentioned. A mounted unit can get to a chokepoint faster or reposition after attacking. Your claim is dubious too considering there are only 4 defend maps out of the 30+ maps in the game, and there isn't really any reason to stay at a chokepoint in most maps considering we want to clear the objective rather than stand still. Enemies in PoR are rather weak, so it's not very difficult to do that either. Mages are useful for certain things too if we want to play quickly, but you can't really make the argument that PoR did anything to help given that they removed some of the tools that made mages good.
  11. The fact that Ike is in a much easier game with access to broken resources makes him better than Eliwood. It helps that he is always going to be deployed too whereas Eliwood doesn't get that luxury in the mode where he actually promotes at a reasonable time, but that's more of a minor thing. Otherwise you've listed several characters that people don't have a good opinion of and female characters that people tend to like to use and therefore overrate. Those don't really fall into the category of characters that are way worse than Eliwood who are ignored either.
  12. What lords are you talking about that are way worse than him?
  13. It doesn't cut their movements indoors. If you do a quick youtube search of a speedrun or something you can confirm it for yourself. I'd provide a video myself if I was sure that it didn't mess with the formatting, but it shouldn't really matter. PoR is really not favorable to unmounted units. It's easy enough of a game that any character can kill enemies, but mounted units are far superior to just about every other unit in the game. Magic units have their place, but otherwise mounted units have some of the best combat stats and a broken form of canto. It doesn't help that Paladin is the only class with a good Occult skill besides Ike's. The only thing that unmounted units have going for them is that they don't need to see that much combat to be functional combat units because of bonus experience.
  14. If we don't nerf mounted units in any way it's tough to balance unmounted units. Some flying units are weak defensively, but not all are, and they're the kinds of units that are worth investing into heavily anyway if they don't already have good combat to begin with. Once a unit reaches a certain threshold more stats don't really matter, so even if we give unmounted units better stats it doesn't fix the issue. It doesn't help that Paladins generally have good control of the weapon triangle on top of everything else. Thracia did it pretty well. They have enough maps where mounted units are really strong, and they are effectively neutered indoors. Giving more enemies anti mount weapons doesn't really fix the issue (too many and mounted units don't get used for combat, and without enough of them it becomes a player phase issue to solve rather than being much of a real nerf), and it would require intricate map design and specific mechanics to accomodate unmounted units while not nerfing mounted units.
  15. It's not that they're bad because of how 'difficult' it is to train them. They're bad because it's not very efficient to train them. Ross is a bit of an exception because he does join early and has a specific niche, but he's not amazing. If you want you can look at their average stats and compare them to similar characters by the way; you'll find that their stats aren't that impressive.
  16. If you're playing on Maddening this is largely going to be true. Otherwise the enemies aren't really threatening enough most of the time. It's also important to note that 3 Houses can promote many different kinds of viable builds and playstyles. The older games are a lot more simple in that way; turn counts mattered more, and a unit didn't change a whole lot from where they started to where they ended up.
  17. FE9 is a bit of a special case to be fair. Growth units in that game are at a significant advantage over every other Fire Emblem game because of the bonus exp mechanics. Eliwood is going to compare at least somewhat more favorably to units that aren't going to be good from the get-go.
  18. I haven't played HNM in a long time, but I'd imagine that Eliwood would have more opportunites to level efficiently in HNM. That is also true of other characters to be sure, but HNM Eliwood should be better than HHM Eliwood.
  19. The problem Eliwood has is that his stats need to be within a certain threshold for him to perform well, and there's a limited amount of time for him to gain those stats before we get a plethora of other units that have the stats, movement, or weapons to do whatever he can do better. If he does grow well initially that might not be true; Eliwood can snowball into a decent unit, but if it takes effort to train him his utility doesn't outweigh the time it takes to train him.
  20. I would suggest keeping a handful of door keys around as they are needed for several chapters. If you do that and swap between saves every chapter you should be able to avoid softlocking anywhere. Otherwise just keep the typical Fire Emblem related things in mind and you should be fine.
  21. If you're trying to play efficiently you don't try to optimize anything else, and oftentimes real time and LTC do intersect. Pure LTC is not very efficient in general though; the only reason to bring it up is to show that Ike can still be shoved bonus exp without any real worry. Edit: The other problem is that "efficiency runs" don't exist. Generally speaking people aren't as interested in that sort of thing, so there are no concrete videos or examples of such a run. I don't understand the fascination people have arguing about it because people just don't play with that in mind, and the casual player is not going to say that X character is good because they save Y turns in a map on average. They say that the character is good because they help finish a map consistently. You can alternatively just use the Ward staff to train her, and healing isn't incredibly useful. It's definitely not as good as other FE games anyway. Read my post earlier about it. The point is that he can be trained without costing very much when playing at maximum efficiency. In most defend maps the amount of useful units is 1. In an escape map generally speaking it's two. It does not take maximum deployment slots to accomplish most tasks in this game. I would guess that Lord+Jill/Marcia, 2 Cavaliers, potentially a mage are enough, and even then it could be done with less. That's 6 units that need help with bonus exp. As I said earlier I don't really need numbers. I don't really need to waste my time when evidence suggests that we don't need it. I would also like to point out that you've completely ignored any other lord, and this is what we've been arguing about in the first place. This is true in FE6, but there are so many chapters where Lyn and Eliwood are not force deployed in HHM (besides the fact that they aren't really needed for anything) that it's not worth training them. I'd also argue that in FE8 it's simpler to just not train Eirika so that she never faces chances of death since she can not die at all costs, and her defenses are shaky. Oh, as for this point. Defensively mages are bad, and they don't have high movement. Mounted units do not have damage problems most of the time, so targeting weaker defenses isn't that strong of a point. Mages are mostly used for Rescue and long range magic, and I would guess that they don't see that much combat outside of that (Actually, interestingly enough Soren is the most used combat unit, but Ike is still comfortably top 7 in the run I am looking at... He does abuse level ups and such though, so as with you I'm going to question the reliability of a mage surviving EP and getting that much combat somewhat.). More to the point though Ike is still trained in most of those LTC runs, and arguing that Ena can do it too is not really an argument given that most runs just feed experience to Ike and call it a day. You can't say that Ena exists and therefor Ike is worthless; it doesn't work that way.
  22. Right, because a 0% growths LTC is a good indicator of how well growths units do. A speedrun tries to finish the game as quickly as possible, so it's going to be a good test of how to play efficiently. If you bother to look there are LTCs that also get Ike to 10 or so promoted on Maniac mode, and that difficulty actually has limited resources especially because money is also limited. Ironman runs give Ike bxp too because it's far easier to give Ike bonus experience than the alternative. On the other hand FE7-8 lords largely stay at their base level in their own games. We often don't need to train 10 units to play the game efficiently. It also doesn't help that there aren't that many mounted units to pass bonus experience around. In the end this doesn't really matter though. You can try and provide evidence why Ike shouldn't be that useful, but actual gameplay goes against it. edit: I also want to bring up forges again because they matter in this discussion too; we've been talking about bonus experience exclusively. I was alluding to them when talking about money in the Japanese version. On the English version we can forge every single chapter and still have a lot of money left at the end of the game. It's basically impossible to run out of forged weapons if we play reasonably quickly, and that's while wasting a bunch of forges on weak enemies. I'm going to assume you haven't watched a speedrun. Otherwise reroute it and prove to me that Ena is faster, but it still doesn't change that Ike would be likely nearly as efficient as Ena while also being servicable throughout the game; it makes the whole process easier so that he doesn't die. Mist and the mages aren't very good units. Why would you even mention them? We also don't need 10 units to play through the game quickly. It's possible to get Jill and Marcia to promotion instantly while still giving Ike sufficient bxp. We can even level Oscar and Kieran and whatever crappy early game unit we want to along with Ike. Not all units are created equal, and having 7 mounts is not going to be that different from having 6. There's also a lot of time to actually give Ike bxp, and we don't have that opportunity in the GBA Fire Emblems. I also wanted to get an edit in for this point. Keeping all Laguz alive in chapter 15 isn't very difficult even while getting Stephan and such. The nice thing about that and having a good strategy for chapter 10 is that after we find a strategy it can be done fairly consistently every single time without having to think about it. My strategy for chapter 10 does not involve all NPC units escaping granted (they don't need to for recruitment), but it's good enough. edit: I should probably summarize the actual point of this whole thing. You could potentially find a run that clears the game really quickly and doesn't train Ike, but the fact of the matter is that fast runs also exist that do level Ike (I'm not sure where you're coming from when you say that we get a lot more out of training another character over Ike, you really need specific gameplay examples than just posting numbers. Perhaps you could show me an example of where having every single mounted unit deployed and trained saves time over having a few less.), so as I stated earlier those resources aren't actually as important as you think they are. If this is the case at near optimal play it only goes in Ike's favor when playing more casually since there will be more time for him to get kills. FE9 is an incredibly generous game for any unit with decent combat potential casually because of bonus exp. Even if it was giving Ike preferential treatment the cost is literally just the time it takes to give him a bunch of bexp. The cost of making Eliwood good for example is finding a lot of enemies for him to kill, and he is stuck in a game where a lot of enemies deal enough damage to him that he needs to be careful to not die. Anyway, if you want to talk about this further maybe we should open a thread on the PoR forums or something? It's probably a bad idea to go on too much with this here given that this is not that topical.
  23. Yeah, this just isn't true, and if you read my edit you can look at an actual example instead of using assumptions. The easiest way to explain why you're wrong though is to consider what say 8 Ike levels nets us if we distrobute it among other non Ike units. It's probably about 1k bxp which is maybe 3 levels for a single promoted unit or not even a level for several. It doesn't mean very much. The difference is that it costs time and efficiency in other games and not in FE9. As I said before your assumption that resources are too limited in FE9 is just flat out wrong. There's just no other way to put it. If you're not willing to accept that then there really isn't any point to the discussion; you're going to have to show me some evidence that the extra experience matters in FE9 if you want me to change my mind, and I doubt you have any.
  24. It's possible to invest heavily into mounted units and still feed bonus experience to Ike. I'm not sure why you're under the assumption that the two are mutually exclusive. We don't need to slow the pace down or suffer for Ike to be a competent unit. This doesn't work for the other games because you can't reasonably assume these things when it might just be better to not train the lords or have them babied to the throne. (Edit) It doesn't help that Eliwood promotes too late in his story and doesn't do those things in Hector's story. Eliwood isn't that durable either. I'm not sure if it's the quality of enemies or the fact that he is not able to get the same kind of treatment that Ike gets for free, but he definitely has durability issues in many different chapters. HHM is a far different beast compared to FE9 HM. I don't know FE8 that well, but I'm going to assume that Eirika's defenses are low enough that she isn't a reliable frontline unit even if she wanted to be. Double edit: If you're interested in examples you can look at the respective speedruns of the games. They are generally done on the easier difficulties, but it's not going to be terribly different on hard mode. They will probably do a better job of showing you than my wall of text trying to explain it to you. If you can't be bothered then I'll just note that Ike gets to 20/15 or so whereas the FE7/8 lords are hardly above their base level at the end of the run.
  25. You either misinterpreted what I said or I did not say it clearly. I was referring to experience and not in terms of catching up to enemies. The game hands us so many resources that we can reasonably assume that Ike will be on level with some sort of forge most of the time. The lords in FE6-FE8 do not have this luxury. You're also simplifying this a little too much. There are certainly situations where Ike is a servicable unit. He has all game to contribute. It can be reasonably assumed that he is going to be fighting some enemies given that he sometimes needs to get to the boss to seize, recruit a character here and there, or he can clear a secondary objective where movement isn't as important.
  • Create New...